If all you are doing is making an observation, you are not making a move in a discussion. Without a claim to which you are attaching this observation, you are simply stating the obvious.Of course films are profit engines for filmmakers.

Your caught in the horns of a dilemma here. You're either saying something correct but uninteresting or interesting but incorrect. I leave it to you to sort out where to take your final stand.

Your annalogy about Penecillium fungi to be usefull for a thing other than it was originally planned, is... weird.

Click to expand...

It's not an analogy. It's an example. It shows how things which we find may be purposed or repurposed. Fungi have biological function which has kept them around for a long time. We may loosely speak of this function as being authored by Nature. In this sense (a sense that biologists deploy all the time), we may speak of the purpose of fungi and their repurposing by humans.

And there are many other examples which can be offered. What was once religion can be repurposed as a literature. What was once an electronic gadget can be repurposed as a paper weight. What was once an econo-box import can be repurposed as a racing "tuner." What was once an intentionally sad tune can be made happy if played briskly with slightly different instrumentation. And so on.

Criticism is the right (and choice, of course) of us all, but with respect and intelligence. First, understand the words and, later, apply criticism.

Click to expand...

I didn't single you out. I think that what you said is quite representative of a certain contingent around these parts. And it is just about the dumbest thing people say around here. Of course, if you want to maintain that what you said was just an innocent observation (i.e., lie), feel free to do so. And if you aren't lying, then your ill-framed observation invites repurposing on my part as an example of a particuarly bad line of argument. So, there's another example for you.

Star Trek '09 is itself an example of repurposing. It has cut against the grain of Roddenberry's utopianism in favor of something hipper and lighter. And they've attempted to rearrange the shape of the Enterprise so that it is, at once,
different but the same. They're trying to breathe new life into the old girl. But the challenge is to create something which carries on the essence of the original while updating other features for contemporary audiences.

But the ship is ugly. It is as ugly as sin, and it is because it is being torn in two directions. It is, at once, the Enterprise, but not the Enterprise. It preserves enough of the old lines to be recognizable, but childishly distorts other features (comments about marital aids upthread were rather apt) to make it keewwwler, more macho, and (most importantly) BIGGER!

And what is wrong with the ship is what is philosophically wrong with the new franchise and with Trek fandom. I remember when JJ Abrams publicly disavowed Trek causing a bit of a disturbance that Robert Orci tried to quell in an article at Trekmovie.com by saying that that was just Abrams talking to non-Trek folks and trying to convince them that the new Trek wouldn't be all geeky.

In short, Star Trek is ashamed of itself. We're ashamed of people who dress like Starfleet officers and show up for jury duty. We're ashamed of people who actually learn to speak Klingon. Consequently, Star Trek is trying to be Star Trek without really being Star Trek. Hence we have the abomination that is the new Enterprise design.

Nick Meyers had the right approach. He wasn't a fan of the show, but he wasn't panicky about it. He took input from the actors and creators and worked to reverse engineer what made it work while changing it slightly to fit his vision. That's what Star Trek needs, not iconoclasts (RDM already had his anti-Trek TV show), not canonistas, but leaders who really try to honor the essence of the orignal (e.g., it's cheesy, but it ain't Star Wars either) while making changes that facilitate honoring and revitalizing that purpose.

I don´t said I´m cool with make more money, I don´t said that I like how the movie was made or that no word can be said against the success in making money versus script holes.

Click to expand...

Why didn't you saidso in the first place?

Click to expand...

Did you guys not notice that Starship is from Brazil? It's quite possible that English is not his first language.

As to the weird apostrophes, the same thing has happened to me when I have accidentally used a French keyboard layout. I suspect that Starship is probably using a non-English Keyboard layout which is probably throwing off the characters.

Did you guys not notice that Starship is from Brazil? It's quite possible that English is not his first language.

Click to expand...

You´re right, thanks!
Sometimes you can´t express very well what you´re trying to say when using a language other than your first. Sometimes it evoques a lot of misunderstandings
For you all reading this: no hard feelings.

There are elements on the Rayonx ship that I really like, but it's too "motion-picture-y" and why does so much of the secondary hull have to be exposed like that?

In my opinion, one of the problems with this design that it shares with that implemented in Trek 2009 is there appear to have been design features implemented for no other reason than to be design features. What function does that extended cover serve over the end of the warp nacelles ... do they keep the rain off delicate parts? Why is so much of the hull on the secondary hull peeled back? The only answer I can think of is because it looks neat. "Wouldn't it be cool if the warp nacelles changed shape?" Well ... yes. But why? "How about if they were translucent?" Cool idea, but why?

Even the original doesn't escape this trap ... why is there that curve under the primary hull? What purpose does that dove tail under the shuttlebay serve? Sometimes you have to do things like this as a designer or else your ship will come out looking like a big sphere with engine ports here and there. Sometimes these weird features might represent elements of futuristic technology ... like the greebles on the inboard sides of the original warp nacelles. I find a little bit of that acceptable.

But when purposeless features come to dominate a design, my inner engineer goes, "What in the name of Feinberger is going on there?!"

Curiously, out of all of these pictures (with the exception of Vektor's, which is a gorgeous update on the original iconic starship) I like Chris Martin's best. Oh, sure it's ugly and needs work, but I sort of like his decision to abandon Matt Jefferies' smooth skin approach and leave the inner workings exposed. My only complaint is that he didn't go far enough. Maybe all of the exterior should be tossed ... leave only a few places covered with sun shields and thermal blankets for protection and make the thing look like it was built by the same species that built the International Space Station.

The whole argument on the JJprise of "just because it looks cool" seems kind of funny to me. The whole reason the Enterprise has a flying saucer instead of a giant ball for a primary hull is because Matt Jeffries decided that it just looked better.

The just cause it looks cool premisse isn´t that bad, and is a part of the game even today. Not all those lines, curves and other details placed on modern cars and edifications, for example, are really necessary. Design is a part of the game, is part of what make us to buy this or that. So, I believe the same can be applyed to starfleet vessels. Of course that designs are a personal choice, so, what is beatifull for one, isn´t for the other.